My Face Is on Fire is a blog (with an associated podcast) which focuses on abolitionist vegan education, animal rights issues and the misrepresentation of veganism in pop culture or mainstream media.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
I Need New Reading Material
I think that I may need a book to review. Or a book suggestion that isn't a reread.
This was accidentally posted by Cavall de Quer as a comment to a different post:
Oooh,oooh, oooh, me Miss, please Miss! (Does Hermione Granger type hand-in-air):
"On Being Certain", Robert A. Burton M.D.,2008, St. Martin's Griffin, New York.
There's a whole slew of books around on the theme of the general unreliability of human thought and memory processes, which can make people check their excuses for not being vegan very carefully. This is a good example.
I think it's more fruitful to find out how human minds work (or don't)in relation to other species than to go down an endless checklist of "why they're like us" Rita
Oh, no, not emotional at all. I just don't like to see anyone waste their time. ;-)
In seriousness, I just think that it is not very good philosophy. I could say more about why I think that... but, you know, that would take a long time. So I'll just give a -1 vote instead. :-P
Hmmm...could you be a little more specific re 'not good philosophy'?
I had the opposite impression: since it was thorough and carefully reasoned, it was much better philosophy than I'm used to reading from professional philosophers, especially in ethics, where myopia, dogma, and obvious fallacies seem to be the norm (especially by philosophers who are diehard fans of certain pet theories like utilitarianism).
If you'd like to chat about it 'for real', you should shoot me an e-mail about why you like it so much. (Your calling it "careful" and "thorough", as I'm sure you understand, is about as substantive as my calling it "not good". So one of us will have to say something substantive to get the ball rolling. I nominate you.)
I warn you that I may be a bit slow, at least initially, to engage in a deep conversation about it. Since I have to do a lot of philosophy to satisfy my requirements/obligations, I'm not always super amped to engage in recreational chats on the side. But we'll see. Maybe you can say something that gets me all fired up! :-)
Oh, haha. (I posted that previous message before I saw your post explaining that you don't have time to talk about it.)
Well, I'm traveling back to Cambridge this afternoon/evening. (I'm in Toronto right now.) Maybe tomorrow I'll find a moment to give you a very short hint about what I don't like. No promises.
I do agree that a lot of moral philosophy is bad, though. The good news for you is that if Huemer is some of the best you've read, then you've still got a rich pool of wonderful stuff to look at!
I have not read Raz, so I'll add Engaging Reason to my list. After I read Raz, I'll probably have a better idea why you're not a fan of Ethical Intuitionism. What will be interesting for me is whether or not I agree that ER > EI as far as book recommendations go.
Mylène, read BOTH! If Huemer is bad compared to Raz, we'll both be able to say why. :-). Down with censorship! :-D
One more thing: For full disclosure, I was a WD Ross fan long before reading Huemer, so, although I read Huemer with a serious attempt to be critical, I did so with a bias for the conclusions he was defending (since he is, for the most part, re-introducing and defending Ross's work).
It was a little bit like a Gary Francione fan reading Gary Steiner's Animals and the Moral Community. :-P
I've been "enjoying" Joan Dunayer's ANIMAL EQUALITY: LANGUAGE AND LIBERATION (as much as one can "enjoy" a book about animal exploitation, anyway). Nibert is on my list, too.
This was accidentally posted by Cavall de Quer as a comment to a different post:
ReplyDeleteOooh,oooh, oooh, me Miss, please Miss! (Does Hermione Granger type hand-in-air):
"On Being Certain", Robert A. Burton M.D.,2008, St. Martin's Griffin, New York.
There's a whole slew of books around on the theme of the general unreliability of human thought and memory processes, which can make people check their excuses for not being vegan very carefully. This is a good example.
I think it's more fruitful to find out how human minds work (or don't)in relation to other species than to go down an endless checklist of "why they're like us"
Rita
I suggest _Engaging Reason_ by Joseph Raz.
ReplyDeleteEthical Intuitionism by Michael Huemer
ReplyDeleteOh god. I wouldn't wish Huemer's book on my enemy. (Read Raz, Mylène!)
ReplyDeleteHehehe. That's a pretty strong/emotional reaction. What's the gripe?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOh, no, not emotional at all. I just don't like to see anyone waste their time. ;-)
ReplyDeleteIn seriousness, I just think that it is not very good philosophy. I could say more about why I think that... but, you know, that would take a long time. So I'll just give a -1 vote instead. :-P
Hmmm...could you be a little more specific re 'not good philosophy'?
ReplyDeleteI had the opposite impression: since it was thorough and carefully reasoned, it was much better philosophy than I'm used to reading from professional philosophers, especially in ethics, where myopia, dogma, and obvious fallacies seem to be the norm (especially by philosophers who are diehard fans of certain pet theories like utilitarianism).
BTW, I don't have time to debate it either, so I won't challenge your more specific complaints; I'm just curious what it/they are.
ReplyDeleteIf you'd like to chat about it 'for real', you should shoot me an e-mail about why you like it so much. (Your calling it "careful" and "thorough", as I'm sure you understand, is about as substantive as my calling it "not good". So one of us will have to say something substantive to get the ball rolling. I nominate you.)
ReplyDeleteI warn you that I may be a bit slow, at least initially, to engage in a deep conversation about it. Since I have to do a lot of philosophy to satisfy my requirements/obligations, I'm not always super amped to engage in recreational chats on the side. But we'll see. Maybe you can say something that gets me all fired up! :-)
Best,
Dave
PS - Mylène, read Raz!!!
Oh, haha. (I posted that previous message before I saw your post explaining that you don't have time to talk about it.)
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm traveling back to Cambridge this afternoon/evening. (I'm in Toronto right now.) Maybe tomorrow I'll find a moment to give you a very short hint about what I don't like. No promises.
I do agree that a lot of moral philosophy is bad, though. The good news for you is that if Huemer is some of the best you've read, then you've still got a rich pool of wonderful stuff to look at!
I have not read Raz, so I'll add Engaging Reason to my list. After I read Raz, I'll probably have a better idea why you're not a fan of Ethical Intuitionism. What will be interesting for me is whether or not I agree that ER > EI as far as book recommendations go.
ReplyDeleteMylène, read BOTH! If Huemer is bad compared to Raz, we'll both be able to say why. :-). Down with censorship! :-D
One more thing: For full disclosure, I was a WD Ross fan long before reading Huemer, so, although I read Huemer with a serious attempt to be critical, I did so with a bias for the conclusions he was defending (since he is, for the most part, re-introducing and defending Ross's work).
ReplyDeleteIt was a little bit like a Gary Francione fan reading Gary Steiner's Animals and the Moral Community. :-P
Have you read Animal Rights/Human Rights, Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation by David Nibert?
ReplyDeleteI would highly recommend it.
This is going to cost me a fortune - wish I had shares in amazon........
ReplyDeleteThanks for the recommendations. I'm going to order some books online over the next month or so and will look all of these up, for certain.
ReplyDeleteI've been "enjoying" Joan Dunayer's ANIMAL EQUALITY: LANGUAGE AND LIBERATION (as much as one can "enjoy" a book about animal exploitation, anyway). Nibert is on my list, too.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Kelly! I'll add it to the list.
ReplyDelete